Faith implies knowledge. If there is absolutely no knowledge, there than can be no faith. There is no such thing as total blind faith. Only partial blind faith exists.

Faith implies knowledge? How so? From where did you get this idea? Dr. Greg Bahnsen?

Faith does not imply knowledge. Faith implies faith. Having no knowledge of something (i.e. a deity named Yahweh) does not at all prevent you front having "faith" (believing in the absence of demonstrable evidence). Kids don't need knowledge of Santa Claus to believe without evidence.

Faith implies knowledge. If there is absolutely no knowledge, there than can be no faith. There is no such thing as total blind faith.

Only partial blind faith exists.

This does not address my point that if you convince us of the existence of god through evidence, we will not have faith, and that that is not the kind of believer you claim the god wants. You are attempting to create the kind of believers that are not desired by your god. Why are you doing that?

Faith implies knowledge. If there is absolutely no knowledge, there than can be no faith. There is no such thing as total blind faith.

Only partial blind faith exists.

I almost agree with you. If there is something out there of which you are totally unaware, there can be no knowledge or faith. You must have an idea in the first place so as to apply knowledge and/or faith.

The trouble is that there are two things in religion "a god" and "a concept of a god".

You and I both have a "concept of a god"; we have ideas as to what those words mean. Both you and I place, Yahweh, Christ, Zeus, Thor, etc in the category of "gods of whom we have a concept."

However, we must not confuse 'God Himself' with 'the concept of a god' - I know God Himself does not exist but the concept of God does exist. OTOH, you know he does exist and know the concept of gods exists.

So your, " If there is absolutely no knowledge, there than can be no faith." should be "If there is absolutely no concept, there than can be no faith..." and the rest flows.

e.g. I can conceive of Australia and God but, as I know there is an Australia and do not know there is a God, I can only have real knowledge of Australia and only a concept of God.

« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 09:49:20 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I've heard all the "I'm open minded / logical / and still no miracles happen" stuff, and I'm really curious how things would go down if y'all actually started to see "miracles."

enter hypothetical universe 100047: (in this universe, what I say below happens, any arguments comparing it to our universe are invalid. kthx.)

This universe is exactly the same as this one - but some surprising stuff happens:

Let's say I found a way to ask God for healing for amputees in a way that he answers.So, I'm able to heal amputees by asking God / Jesus to heal them - and their limbs regrow in about a minute -- causing them to gain weight and mass proportionate to the newly regrown appendage.

So, I go around healing everybody who's missing limbs. It's scientifically proven, tested, to the satisfaction of everyone. Limbs are regrowing in accordance with what's written in the bible.

Then to make things clear, I go around repeating every miracle in the bible - 'cept the once where ppl got killed, cuz I'm not into killing. They're proven. Mountains move, I walk on water and stop storms and turn the sun to darkness, raise George Washington from the dead, spawn entire planets from nothing and populate them in days, predict a 100 digit random number 100s of times in a row, etc...

Does this prove that God exists?

1. You could say "aliens with super technology altering quantum states magically make this happen in accordance with the bible to make it seem like the bible is true."(This would be curious. How can you prove God isn't an multi-dimentional alien overlord?)

2. You could say "People have always possessed this power, and you've simply unlocked it using codes written into the bible - it's not true, religious documents are just the most popular way to transfer extremely powerful information."

Well, if evolution is the case, you're admitting that you believe that somehow beings evolve to higher levels of consciousness can alter the universe tele-kinetically. (in this case, we could design a biological super computer that could make entire real planets or spawn people.)

3. Say that we're all just part of a supercomputer simulation, and this stuff is just part of the game... and winners who can believe in the bible get super powers.(once again, this doesn't prove that "God" doesn't exist)

4: Believe the bible and God is real, and satan has been working his hardest to keep people from finding the truth... and inventing all sorts of ways around people actually believing in God.(in this case, you'd have to sift out all the lies you've been believing and find the truth like I did)

And I'm not really sure if this counts but it does say in the Bible that Jesus healed a mans cut off ear. That should be used as some evidence, it's almost the same thing as an arm. So that is proof within the Bible that he did and still does heal cut off parts.

Examiner link"A Dictionary of Miracles by the Reverend Ebenezar Cobham Brewer (a 1901 compendium of everything fantastical in Christian dogma), provides me with the same kind of entertainment as Bullfinch's Mythology does. Both have stories about jaw-droppingly wild happenings that occur when gods intervene in the world of humankind. The only difference is that a story like Leda and the Swan, where the god Zeus takes the form of a swan to seduce and impregnate the maiden Leda, is regarded as a charming fairytale because no one (or almost no one) believes in the Greek gods anymore... but a similar story where Jehovah, in the form of a Holy Ghost, impregnates the Virgin Mary, is believed without question by millions.

I find this credulity fascinating because of the kind of mental gymnastics people have to go through to believe what common sense and experience should tell them is unbelievable. I also find it alarming because, as the philosopher Voltaire (1694 - 1778) said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

But thanks for the atheist argument mixed with the crazy Eliseo F. Soriano link. It is refreshing to see xians read articles critical to their faith.

Examiner link"A Dictionary of Miracles by the Reverend Ebenezar Cobham Brewer (a 1901 compendium of everything fantastical in Christian dogma), provides me with the same kind of entertainment as Bullfinch's Mythology does. Both have stories about jaw-droppingly wild happenings that occur when gods intervene in the world of humankind. The only difference is that a story like Leda and the Swan, where the god Zeus takes the form of a swan to seduce and impregnate the maiden Leda, is regarded as a charming fairytale because no one (or almost no one) believes in the Greek gods anymore... but a similar story where Jehovah, in the form of a Holy Ghost, impregnates the Virgin Mary, is believed without question by millions.

I find this credulity fascinating because of the kind of mental gymnastics people have to go through to believe what common sense and experience should tell them is unbelievable. I also find it alarming because, as the philosopher Voltaire (1694 - 1778) said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

But thanks for the atheist argument mixed with the crazy Eliseo F. Soriano link. It is refreshing to see xians read articles critical to their faith.

Okay if you don't like those links. I can give you more.

And you didn't say anything about Jesus healing someones cut off ear. How is that any different than an arm or a leg?

The first link is anecdotal and not particularly believable, especially since it's the equivalent of an op-ed. He talks about how someone "instantaneously" regrew a small piece of his eye after the writer and his prayer circle prayed to God, and then lists a whole lot of anecdotal stories about how people make rather outrageously ridiculous claims about regrowing limbs, such as someone who had no legs, went to buy shoes, and "instantaneously" grew legs, or the person who, if the writer remembers correctly, slowly regrew the missing portion of his right leg over several weeks time. All he has to report is hearsay 'testimony' that he hasn't personally witnessed, and that makes his own testimony suspect.

EDIT: The second link has nothing to do with proving miracles, but instead is all about showing just how unbelievable they are. I apparently mistook satire for actual behavior, which happens every so often. It brings up the supposed Biblical healings of amputees, and other anecdotal stories about healings, which are hardly believable in and of themselves. Imagine if, in two thousand years, we had people believe that we used to play a game called Quiddich, where people fly around on broomsticks and try to fling balls into goals, because it was written about in the Harry Potter books. And then, used fanfiction about Harry Potter as support. That's why bringing up Biblical stories doesn't work.

The third link is a blog entry from a religious pastor which acts as if God is the only one who does any healing, otherwise everyone with the same disease, treated in the same way, would heal the same way. Newsflash - people are not all the same, so why would anyone expect that they would heal the same way? But no. This guy draws the conclusion that healing - all healing - comes from God. And furthermore, tapdances around the issue of healing amputees by claiming that it's the amputation that heals them, and that God makes sure they recover afterward. *shakes head*

The final link is just as bad as the others. First, it attempts to shift the burden of proof, claiming that we can't assume God has never healed amputees. However, this is irrelevant. Until we have empirical evidence showing that human limbs can regenerate, it is not even slightly reasonable to conclude that it might happen and we just aren't aware of it. That's how skepticism works - until someone shows evidence that something actually happens, there is no reason to believe claims they make that it does. Second, it attempts to spin a line about how it isn't God's fault that everyone isn't healed, because we live in a fallen world. But that's attempting to shift the blame. If I make something, and it's messed up, and I'm a good person who cares about my creation, then I would feel obligated to work to fix the problems with what I created. Yet God doesn't do this; instead, he plays hide-and-seek, except with those who already believe in him, which is totally backwards anyway, and lets people suffer nonstop.

The rest of it is the same; attempts to spin things to act like God doesn't have to be responsible or do anything he doesn't want to, and to create excuses why things no longer happen the way they did.

So, "God Exists 11:11", do you have anything more believable than this? Like, say, a medical report of an amputee regenerating a limb? Or did you necro this post in vain?

« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 10:06:02 AM by jaimehlers »

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I don’t have to explain Jesus saving ears or legs. THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED CLAIMS ITS FICTION. I LOVE that link. No need to find new ones. I don’t even have to explain anything to you. All you have to do is actually read the link you provided for your argument. It's actually a pretty strong argument from an atheist with a mind that is more open than mine to this kind of silliness.

I don’t have to explain Jesus saving ears or legs. THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED CLAIMS ITS FICTION. I LOVE that link. No need to find new ones. I don’t even have to explain anything to you. All you have to do is actually read the link you provided for your argument. It's actually a pretty strong argument from an atheist with a mind that is more open than mine to this kind of silliness.

Lol don’t come at us with this weak sauce.

Why are you in this topic if you do't believe in God anyways? The topic is, "Why does God not heal amputees?" I gave you reasons. And your dodging the whole Jesus thing and going back to the links. Where does it say that it claims its fiction? Are you making stuff up again like you did with those versus? Your argument is what's weak and quite confusing at that.

You also didn't answer my question as to why you were using Bible versus when you don't even believe in it. So you admit to me that you're a hypocrite? And I'm pretty sure there was some other questions unanswered as well...that's what makes a "debate" weak.

Why are you in this topic if you do't believe in God anyways? The topic is, "Why does God not heal amputees?"

I pop up all over the place! They can't contain me, I just bust loose! For future reference if I am not supposed to post in one of your threads please title it with "No G-Rolls allowed" so I will know better. Otherwise I will continue to assume I can post wherever I want so long as I follow the forum rules.And if I may point out the topic is "Why Does god Not Heal Amputees?" So why are you in this topic if you believe in god? Also the forum is atheist. So... what brings you here? By your logic?

Quote

And your dodging the whole Jesus thing and going back to the links.

Why did you post the links? Are they evidence to your claims? Well, one of them said quite the opposite of what you were claiming. Per your article that was written by an atheist;

"I find this credulity fascinating because of the kind of mental gymnastics people have to go through to believe what common sense and experience should tell them is unbelievable. I also find it alarming because, as the philosopher Voltaire (1694 - 1778) said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

I much like the author of the article do not believe Jesus regrew a person's ear. The author of your article explained that for me. As it was compared to Zeus seducing Leda in the guise of a swan.

Quote

Are you making stuff up again like you did with those versus?

And now I know that you know nothing of the Old Test. That is another topic so I won't dwell on it here, but I do look forward to reading your.. what did your article call it? Oh yeah "Mental Gymnastics" as you try and explain how ripping apart 42 small children is acceptable behavior.

Quote

You also didn't answer my question as to why you were using Bible versus when you don't even believe in it.

Sure I did. As I said before I use your book because you believe in it. So I point out things like the 42 kids vs the 2 she bears because I believe it will be more useful than any real world actual fact when discussing topics with delusional people.

Is this conversation going to go beyond me being a hypocrite for posting in a public forum or questioning how much of my time I spend here?

You've had plenty of time to write a response to me, "God Exists 11:11". Your failure to do so suggests you are not interested in actually discussing this topic but only in trying to pick low-hanging fruit. Therefore, I am reporting you for post necromancy.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Please... It is not a question of "liking them", it is a question of their being at a level that would convince a 7 year old.

Quote

And you didn't say anything about Jesus healing someone's cut off ear. How is that any different than an arm or a leg?

I take it that (a) you have never read a bible (b) you are under 12 years old. Please re-read the verse, 51 But Jesus answered, "Let me at least do this" —and he touched his ear, and healed him.

It does not say, "51 And there and then a new ear grew instantly in the place of the one on the floor, and the crowd marvelled and touched the new ear. 52 And many took pictures with their iPhones and Roman doctors were present who certified that the ear was indeed new and they saw the old ear. 53 See page 2342 for peer reviewed papers on this matter."

Additionally, the exterior ear has no bones and few nerves. Which is somewhat unlike a leg or arm.

I see you are new here. We are not unfriendly, but we do like people who can think. We like people who can think critically. If you are like those who just parrot what their pastor/priest/vicar/shaman/muezzin has said, be prepared for a hard time.

You've had plenty of time to write a response to me, "God Exists 11:11". Your failure to do so suggests you are not interested in actually discussing this topic but only in trying to pick low-hanging fruit. Therefore, I am reporting you for post necromancy.

You've had plenty of time to write a response to me, "God Exists 11:11". Your failure to do so suggests you are not interested in actually discussing this topic but only in trying to pick low-hanging fruit. Therefore, I am reporting you for post necromancy.

Lol did you just call me low hanging fruit?

Well, jaimehlers did say "trying to". Who's to say they succeeded?

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.